I'll make the sacrifice .
I object to this being called a 'tiara'. Madeleine should have refused to wear it and demanded something better. It's not as if they don't have enough to go round. :) Pic courtesy Allover Press.

I agree Magnik, Victoria's first tiara is horrible, there's nothing to it. Are there even any jewels on it? If there is I can't tell, it's too small. They should have started her off with something better and bigger!:)

I have seen a closeup of this tiara and there are actually tiny diamonds and sapphires at the ends of the "spikes". You wonder why they even bothered putting them there since they are hardly visible to the naked eye. I would have had a hard time hiding my disappointment if I had been given this as a birthday present.

2. Why Sonja, why.:( I love this tiara's base but not the crosses (I think that's what they are correct me if I'm wrong) on the top. Maybe if she spread those around the base so they go all the way around instead of hording all three of them at the top it would be okay.http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...0&d=1112911232

i also agree with margrethe's poppy "thing". it's definetely a really awful jewel. the same for the tiara victoria of sweden normally uses with the buttons. it is so big and not delicate.
i must say i kind of like madeleine's tiara. it's simple and the colour of the jewel itself makes a nice match with her eyes. the same for sonja's tiara. although it's not my favourite i see nothing wrong with it. personally i think gold tiaras don't look as good as silver ones. is it topaces sonja's has?

i think all jewels look good as long as they are not too flashy or not delicate. a little sparkling jewel looks a lot better than big thick gold ones normally. as we always say, elegant women need to have the words simple and delicate in mind all the time, and the same applies to jewels.

oh, don't get me wrong. although some of them are not my favourites and some others look just too funny or strange, i would love to have a piece of them, just because of the fact that they are royal jewels. i'm not saying they are not nice, but perhaps not as nice as they could be for the price they have. could you give us more details on those jewels, userdane? are they jewels that some other danish royal used or is it the first time they were worn? i'm not very keen on royal jewels and thought those were specially bought for mary (maybe by frederik as a present...)

Hi Carlota,:)
I don't remember having seen these jewellery by Georg Jensen before on anyone from the DRF - perhaps QMII has one of their brooches, I cannot recall. I did recognise the distinct style of that firm (you can get an impression from this link: http://www.georgjensen.com/gj/flash/home/homepage.html under heritage). I was just surprised when I saw them but thought that they were a good choice for the occasion where the 'usual' royal jewellery might have been a bit too much if Mary was the only one wearing such jewellery. And I have always admired the workmanship of the pieces made by Georg Jensen.
It could very well be either a present in connection with the birth of prince Christian - or perhaps a birthday present from Frederik; or perhaps even from the queen. I don't know if she has given her daughers-in-law presents after they have given births but it might be a possibility.

Oh, My God!! My God!!! My God!!!! Where did you people get those awful pitures. They are blackmail material. Whatever you do, be sure to keep them out of the hands of the republicans (note the small r, please). If they were to get their hands on them, they would have a field day. This is the worst thing for monarchy since the overthrow of the Shah.

This only goes to prove the point I de on the ruby thread-that Jewels must be handled with care, skill, discretion and taste. If not, the result is a very expensive - and you must admit- spectacular disaster. You could take a perfect blue diamond thrice the size of the origianal Cullinan and either create the most magnificent masterpiece ever seen or something that your cat left on the lawn.

Given the waste of good gold, silver, gemstones and whatnot exhibited by these awful picture, not to mention the total collapse of taste the only thing that could be done would be to go Van Cleef and Arpels one better. When they got their hands on the magnificent emeral tiara of the Empress Marie Louise, they extracted and sold off bit by bit all the emeralds and then sold the diamond studded remains of the frame to an American who in good republican fashion had the thing set with turquoise-Horrors-and then gave it to the Smithsonian. The only thing worse to a good monarchist such as mysefl-apart from the usual beheadings of course-was the time they took the mummy of Rameses II, sans case, and put it on display in the Cairo Museum.

So give me a pair of pliers, hammer, tweezers, blowtorch and whatnot. I would extract all the gemstones, melt down all the metals, burn all those ***###pictures and START OVER. Honestly, you would have thought these women would have had better sense or at least better taste.

It only goes to prove that even the most gorgeous woman in the world -and some of these creatures are Drop Dead Gorgeous-can do only so much. On even these women, the jewelry is still positively revolting. Of course on the women that are not so lovely, the stuff is so awful, so hideous that you don't even notice THEM. Or maybe they just fit right in. Rania's little emerald number gives Boucheron a really bad name. K Mart would have put the thing on dispaly for sale at Halloween and made a fortune. One would have thought it had been done for one of Sadaam's mistresses.

Sonia, poor thing, looks like she has come back for marauding the coasts and burning the monestaries in Ireland. As for Margerethe II's little Star Trek Poppy number, I can only say that I created a similar effect the time I appeared at a Halloween party clad in wig, surgical bloomers, t shirt and a basefall cap. Cheeers. Thomas Parkman

Queen Sonja's tiaras are terrible! Especially the first one . Thanks for for posting the pictures Amy (last post on first page). As to Madeleine's aquamarine tiara, it's not great and is ugly compared to the fringe tiara she wears often. But if you want to get into the first-Swedish-tiara battle, Madeleine's aquamarine one trumps Victoria's first tiara. That has to be a pathetic excuse for a tiara, especially for a future Queen! There are no substantial stones and the base takes over. At least in the aquamarine one you can SEE the aquamarine and the diamonds. But King Carl Gustaf and Queen Siliva, what were you thinking?! It was their 18th birthday!

Oh, My God!! My God!!! My God!!!! Where did you people get those awful pitures. They are blackmail material. Whatever you do, be sure to keep them out of the hands of the republicans (note the small r, please).

Wow! A grown-up newbie with a fantastic writing style and a sense of humour? That must be my day!
I have not meant welcome that much for a long time.

The one Mabel is wearing was made on the second frame of Queen Emma's sapphire diademe (which reminds me of a gothic cathedral). I never saw it before in this frame, and I hope I will never see it again like this either.

From Getty, the original diademe and Beatrix in London:

Maxima wore the pointy tiara twice, which is a waste for those beautiful diamonds I thing. The could make something much better out of this and there were at least two other frames for these stones. Usually they make a necklace out of it btw, which looks better then the tiara as well.